3 ms·

If a company isn't ready to compete against someone/something that is using the code the company has written and published as FOSS, then yes, please do not use

If a company isn't ready to compete against someone/something that is using the code the company has written and published as FOSS, then yes, please do not use FOSS licenses for your "Open Source" product. One would think that the companies thought this through before publishing FOSS code, but seemingly there is a lot that didn't do that.

sanderjd 3y ago
This is essentially where I have landed. I think these companies should have just used a license like BSL from the get-go, and I hope that the next generation of product companies will learn that lesson. But unfortunately I think the lesson they will take from this instead is "we should just build a SaaS with no source availability because that's way easier and source-available just makes people mad anyway". I think that's a shame.
- pknomad 3y ago
  > I think these companies should have just used a license like BSL from the get-go I think that's the general attitude the software companies will have going in the future. Why even bother dealing with negative PR and push back against their ability to make money by going with FOSS? In hindsight, TF should have been released with BSL from the beginning. I am not a huge fan of Hashicorp changing its licenses for future releases but I am also skeptical of OpenTF's motives since their members have big financial stake in that decision.
  - fishnchips 3y ago
    > skeptical of OpenTF's motives Acknowledged, there are always self-serving motives involved. Generally things don't happen without a reason. But we donated the project to a foundation, and will over time build (and fund) a dedicated independent team who will follow their own vision and the community needs, not ours. So please judge us by our actions, not assumed motives. > their members have big financial stake in that decision I can't speak on behalf of others but to us at Spacelift it's less about direct financials (we are actually not directly affected by the license change!) and more about being in charge of our own destiny and product roadmap.

sanderjd 3y ago

This is essentially where I have landed. I think these companies should have just used a license like BSL from the get-go, and I hope that the next generation of product companies will learn that lesson. But unfortunately I think the lesson they will take from this instead is "we should just build a SaaS with no source availability because that's way easier and source-available just makes people mad anyway". I think that's a shame.

pknomad 3y ago
> I think these companies should have just used a license like BSL from the get-go I think that's the general attitude the software companies will have going in the future. Why even bother dealing with negative PR and push back against their ability to make money by going with FOSS? In hindsight, TF should have been released with BSL from the beginning. I am not a huge fan of Hashicorp changing its licenses for future releases but I am also skeptical of OpenTF's motives since their members have big financial stake in that decision.
- fishnchips 3y ago
  > skeptical of OpenTF's motives Acknowledged, there are always self-serving motives involved. Generally things don't happen without a reason. But we donated the project to a foundation, and will over time build (and fund) a dedicated independent team who will follow their own vision and the community needs, not ours. So please judge us by our actions, not assumed motives. > their members have big financial stake in that decision I can't speak on behalf of others but to us at Spacelift it's less about direct financials (we are actually not directly affected by the license change!) and more about being in charge of our own destiny and product roadmap.